The war against extremism must be waged online

Arrest warrants have been issued for Australians fighting with the Islamic State after gruesome beheading photos came to light. Here, Anthony Bergin argues that we desperately need to counter the extremist message being propagated by recruiters online.

A noted Australian expert of Middle East security Roger Shanahan has recently argued that Australia's Muslim communities aren't being well served by their clerical leadership in tackling the foreign fighter issue.

The Syrian civil war is being broadcast live over social media, from where young people in our Muslim communities are getting their information. The Syrian conflict is the first YouTube war.

So Shanahan is spot on in arguing that any campaign undertaken by authorities here to discourage Australians from fighting overseas should include a strong online effort to counter extremist recruiters.

He's also right to call for media-savvy Australian Islamic clerics to construct the counter-narrative. At the moment there isn't enough online material in Australia that debunks extremist content, allowing extremists' propaganda to dominate the conversation.

To date, we've used tough powers to prevent our citizens fighting in Syria by depriving them of their passports, mounting criminal charges as well as imposing bank account restrictions. The Attorney-General's Living Safe Together website has put out some information on the problem. Members of several of our Muslim communities have met law enforcement officials to discuss the local impacts of the Syrian conflict.

But it's time for the Abbott government to release a comprehensive statement outlining its position on the foreign fighter issue. There's no one place which allows people to find out what the government's strategy is, and which clarifies what people can do if they have concerns.

We need a national awareness campaign aimed at young people and their parents (so they can tip off police) about the dangers of our citizens travelling to fight in foreign conflicts. This should be led by the police, working with community-based organisations, to explain how Australian citizens will be preyed upon by Islamist groups if they go to fight overseas.

We should be offering seed funding and training for grassroots online counter-extremism initiatives to help moderate Islamic community and student groups to develop social media campaigns, and forums to discuss the dangers of extremism.

It will be important for government not to put all its eggs into just a few baskets here: better to spread small start-up grants to a range of responsible groups.

Finally, we should have a rehabilitation program for Australian foreign fighters returning from conflict zones like Syria and Iraq.

One Norwegian study found that a substantial number of foreign fighters move on to international terrorism: on average, one in nine foreign fighters returned home to take part in a domestic terror plot.

The government should work with mental health practitioners to ensure that any program best integrates those returning from conflict zones. Their experiences may make them vulnerable to post-traumatic stress disorder and so increase their vulnerability to radicalisation.

Such a program should be developed now: as Attorney-General George Brandis has noted, per capita Australia is one of the largest sources of foreign war fighters to the Syrian conflict from countries outside the region.

Dr Anthony Bergin is deputy director of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute. View his full profile here.

Comments (232)

Radish:

29 Jul 2014 5:47:24pm

Rehabilitation program be damned. If these people choose to take part in the type of barbarism that is taking place in Syria, and more so in Iraq, of their own free will their Australian passports should be cancelled immediately. I for one do not want these potential terrorists back here.

GRF:

29 Jul 2014 6:44:59pm

Yes, it is not possible to 'rehabilitate' these people. They also do not have a mental illness and cannot be 'cured' using medication. These people are simply following the tenants of Islam; which is to kill all who oppose the imposition of Sharia law and an Islamic state - in this case a resurgent 'Caliphate'. So it is completely logical for them, on returning to Australia, to continue to slaughter 'infidels'. Their religion demands it.

There is one and one-only cure; Christianity. Unfortunately they are murdering the Christians too. With nairh a whisper of complaint from the compliant left ......

bobtonnor:

james g:

30 Jul 2014 2:54:14pm

The short, simple answer to Australia's dilemma of 'Muslim' infidels infiltrating our 'Christian' culture?DON'T LET THEM IN! This disgusting religion is the pariah of mankind with its lunatics and xenophobic preachers calling for mayhem and death to every believer of other religions and western infidels. Why? Because we disagree with their beliefs!I'm not a lone voice. Millions of Australians agree with my sentiment.It's about time we united and told our politicians to rid our democratic, Christian nation of this useless rabble. Now!

Generality:

30 Jul 2014 4:14:02pm

I can see the original people of Australia saying similar things about the boat people back then. They were called ignorant heathens that must be brought out of their barbaric immoral life into the hands of god/

Sound familiar? And just like what's happening now, it was done by force and with violence. If the people opposed the take over, they were defying god himself. Still sounding familiar?

Any culture that uses god or gods to justify killing off anyone else with different belies, IMO, is the same. And just as dangerous.

The only reason this country is christian is because it was successfully invaded and occupied by christians, who were able to do so because they had more fire power and a greater ability to kill and conquer.

Had that been Hindu or Shinto or Islam that had first conquered Australia we would have a different language, culture, and I dare say religion.

If GOD says it is wrong to kill. Why do people KILL under the excuse of god?

JohnnoH:

29 Jul 2014 7:22:01pm

I'm sorry, but they are not following the tenants of Islam. This sort of rubbish has nothing to with being a Muslim. As a Christian, I'm worried about these false "Islamic" practices in the same way I'm worried about cults passing themselves off as Christians.

APM:

30 Jul 2014 7:39:41am

It doesn't matter what true Islam is. All I care is that many followers of Islam regard using extreme violence as part of their religious adherence as normal and even a requirement. As widely practiced, Christians turn the other cheek and Muslims go looking for a fight; Christians are tolerant and muslims are intolerant. Chalk and cheese.

Dove:

30 Jul 2014 7:59:30am

APM, you have no idea what you're talking about. Every religion can be a religion of peace and every religion can be a religion of hate. And they all are. It comes down to the people practicing it. We've already established that you've never met any muslism or spoken to them about their beliefs so it's probably for the best that you play to your strengths.

APM:

30 Jul 2014 9:30:13am

I do know what I am talking about. It is based on the readily observable patterns that I see both here and abroad. I am pretty sure I am not imagining that wherever there is a significant muslim presence there is an environment of violence and oppression and extremism as compared to places where christians dominate. I have a post graduate degree in humanities and know about the dangers of stereotyping and history and tolerance and so on but I still see fundamental differences between the impacts of Islam and Christianity in the modern world. I do not regard it as intelligent or moral to pretend these strong patterns do not exist. It's like denying the impact of alcohol on driving or cigarettes on health. Dancing around the issue by saying all religions have the capacity for evil is dishonest. The outcome of the presence of the religions is clear cut and predictable over place and time. You are defending the indefensible. I wonder why.

mike:

Harry:

bluedog:

30 Jul 2014 10:40:20am

Dove, some religions contain injunctions that point to violence, injunctions that are quoted even today as being of relevant meaning.

For example, a recent interfaith outreach programme at the Vatican went slightly off the rails. From the Gatestone Institute website, ''The Vatican failed in an attempt to cover up the contents of a prayer by a Muslim cleric at an interfaith "Prayer for Peace" service held in the Vatican garden on June 8. Departing from a pre-approved script, the imam recited verses 284-286 of Sura 2 from the Koran, the latter part of which calls on Allah to grant Muslims victory over non-Muslims'.

You should try the Gatestone Institute website, Dove. Its a mine of confronting facts.

Dove:

30 Jul 2014 10:56:54am

I used to sing Onward Christian Soldiers as kid. I wouldn't be too concerned. But of course some people try to justify their secular wars with religion, to give it a cloak of legitimacy or to spice up the rewards. Everyone religion does it. And yes, there are backstreet preachers using religion as a recruiting tool for their wars. And they are a tiny number of people.

It's hard to read a part of the quran without coming across an injunction to defeat someone. It's a fire and brimstone text. Perhaps the Vatican should have come back with some Old Testament quotes about smitings, hip and thigh to even the odds?

APM:

30 Jul 2014 11:59:15am

You really have to stop with the dishonesty that Christianity is an equally destructive and extreme force as Islam in the world. The Left cannot defend Islam anymore except to say Christianity is just as bad - rubbish. Christianity has evolved and ancient texts and symbols and songs are of little relevance. Christianity does not pervade Western thought the way that Islam dominates all aspect of their societies. Christianity usually compliments humanistic advancement these days whilst Islam is utterly unreconstructed from its tribal and medieval origins and cannot see outside this bubble. Nothing is ever questioned or advanced and part of the good life is to demonstrate one's brutality as a mark of piety. All the conflicts of the Middle east centre on Islam and a race to the bottom in idiotic tribalised visions of brutality and oppression. Muslims terrorise christians and rarely the other way around including christians who are helping them escape poverty and persecution. I cannot even think of any muslim humanitarians for non muslims. The simple test is, would you choose to live in a country dominated by Christians or Muslims? Game, set, match.

Bob Brown:

Dove:

30 Jul 2014 12:33:56pm

APM, you think that all muslims wear turbans are ride camels. The middle east, that you are fixated on, is 19% of the world total. 19%. Your views in islam are completely wrong in asia, where two thirds of the worlds muslims lived, and where I spend about a third of my time. Yes, happily and peacefully living in a muslim country, enjoying both eids and christmas. Had you ever been to indonesia (they play christmas carols in the shopping malls there, the world's most populous muslim country- you'd love it), malaysia, india, turkey you'd see a very different picture to the one that the tellie has been showing you. If you left your hotel you might even meet some locals that you could quiz.

To balance that, let's look at a christian country of nearly 80 million. The Congo. At war with its christian self and at war with its christian neighbours in the bloodiest conflict since WWII. Go and book a return ticket and see for yourself. On second thought, don't. You won't need the return trip. And we hear nothing, nothing of the war there....but some muslim terrorists kidnap girls in Nigeria and it's the confected outrage of the week.

APM:

30 Jul 2014 2:05:18pm

The Congo war has nothing to do with religion, just a history of dysfunction that sees conflict normalised seemingly forever. I cannot find any reference to anyone fighting for a Christian god or vision, or any sort of philosophy. Just because Christians inhabit an area does not make christianity the problem; rather they have grafted a superficial form of christianity onto traditional tribal cultures but it just isn't a factor here. Sub Saharan Africa cannot seem to discipline itself to be stable and develop but that is a different topic. Occam's razor suggests something that you would regard as the scariest idea in the world. I do not know of any widespread Christian extremist groups in Africa but I can think of several Islamist groups that have the usual monolithic property of solving problems through extreme violence and imposing a primitive, miserable existence based on a wrathful god. Boko Haram is telling us very loudly that they kill and destroy and enslave in the name of Islam. It's particularly repulsive because it is an organised and deliberate and merciless repudiation of human potential above ground.

Dove:

theologin1:

30 Jul 2014 6:25:16pm

Dove. The Barnabas Fund, has well documented cases of Christian persecution by Muslims in your beloved Indonesia. That is why around Christmas time and Easter, the police have to surround the Churches to protect the worshipers inside. Just Google Barnabas Fund and you will see for your self. However as you are constantly on these forums defending Islam to the best of your ability it is obvious to where your allegiance lies. Yes there is good and bad Muslims, like in everything, but the Korans's fundamental texts are dangerous to all non-Muslims, which makes it incompatible with Western Society.

Generality:

30 Jul 2014 4:27:02pm

And without meaning to APM sort of nails it. Christianity used to be rabid and we used to attend church 3 times a week and say prayers every morning and night, and look to god for help and solutions. We dont now. Thank you for pointing that out. But why?

As western/christian nations have (largely) increased their standard of living, they have turned to a distant god less and less to "help" them. Now they help themselves. The priests are no longer godlike figures held in awe and to be obeyed unthinkingly. Now we go yeah whatever.

We feel like we dont "need" god. We arent "afraid" of a god figure. We dont have to beg a god to save us. We're doing ok.

For those who dont have the lifestyle we do, they still turn to their religious leaders, swallow the clap trap whole, and the more they see they are downtrodden, the more they will turn to a vengeful god to save them.

It takes 3 generations of "doing ok" to take the edge off the fanaticism and remove the power bases from the priesthoods.

In my opinion, all 3 prongs of the judaic religions are the same. All springing from the same picture of what god is. And just as power hungry and destructive.

blax5:

james g:

30 Jul 2014 3:52:18pm

That is the point Dove. Maniacs practising a religion built around a paedophile which denigrates females and rewards martyrs with who kill innocent people with '87 virgins'. What utter garbage!This is not a religion Dove, it's a cult which has NO place in our Christian society.

Dove:

30 Jul 2014 6:01:54pm

james, you'll find islam does none of those things.

It's instructive that you ignore the view of Islam's own clergy, the senior, credentialed and influential religious leaders in communities, in countries and in the schools of Islam. You ignore what they about their own religion. Perhaps you think you know better? You ignore what the overwhelming majority of muslims say about their own religion. Perhaps you think you know better. Instead, you cite the murderers and terrorists and conclude that they are a better representation than the 1.6 billion others. There's a term for that. It's called confirmation bias. But you can drop the confirmation. Have you also concluded also that, because of the actions of some priests that the entire Christian world are paedophiles? Do try thinking

Rabbithole:

30 Jul 2014 8:02:37am

APM,

While u r on your high horse, why don't you stop and count how many invasion muslims countries embarked on last century and then compare that to Christian Countries. Christian extremists have caused more suffering than Muslim extremists.

The most common form of terrorism is false flag terrorism, whereby Christian extremists and Jewish extremists undertake terrorism and then blame it on muslims or rogue states or countries the NWO want to invade for petrol.

It is more than likely that Islam was created by the Roman Catholics to keep the marauders out of Italy after the fall of Rome, hence the similar creation stories and not charging money to lend money, thus enabling to keep them relatively poor and defeatable.

Our government is run by religious extremists, the NWO religious empires control the ALPLNP.

Alternative3:

There is an important difference. Islamic invasions come from Islamic clerics, in keeping with their idea that government is subservient to religion.

What you are calling Christian invasions are invasions by countries that happen to be Christian, with a mix of beliefs (or unbeliefs) in the armed forces and leadership.

Which is crucial. Islam has as it's central tenets the need to recruit, breed, keep and fight. Christianity has as it's central tenet the need for love and forgiveness, the blemishes come from human failings of its people. Which is why democracy, liberal thought, women's rights, prosperity etc are as common in the Christian (or "until recently Christian") world as they are rare in the Islamic world.

mike:

Clytie Siddall:

30 Jul 2014 4:18:53pm

There are quite a number of dangerous, supposedly Christian cults. Like all cults, they harm their own, but they are even more dangerous to those who question or oppose them. Expansion at all cost, and the destruction of perceived "enemies" are central principles of cults.

You won't find extremist Christianity in the Amish or Quakers, peaceful communities by and large. You'll find it in the Westboro Baptist Church, the cult just exposed on ABC TV, Agape Ministries, and other groups claiming to be "evangelical" and "Pentecostal" but actually preying on society. Paramilitary white-supremacy groups also claim to be "defending" Christianity.

Supposedly Christian cult groups represent Christianity about as well as ISIS represents Islam. That is to say, not at all. :)

Generality:

30 Jul 2014 4:16:44pm

Obviously you never heard of the christian crusades? The aim of which was to invade other countries, take control and convert everyone to their faith. Something to do with the king of the day being the voice of god, so they had to obey god/king. And that was the christians.

Religious wars are usually politically motivated, but fool the foot soldiers into doing what they do because apparently "god" said so.

mike:

30 Jul 2014 5:36:44pm

The Crusades happened centuries ago, though all too many fundamentalist Muslims and their defenders like to remember it. Today, the vast majority of those massacred in the name of religion are killed by Muslim perpetrators, and in the majority of cases the victims are Muslim too - just a different variation of such. I'm certainly NO fan of Christianity but in today's world barbaric violence in the name of religion is largely a Muslim phenomenon and occurs in numerous countries worldwide from the Philippines to Nigeria and beyond.

avienne:

29 Jul 2014 7:39:55pm

What absolute rubbish.. compliant left indeed.. you just can't help yourself can you... no one supports this type of activity. I am sick to death of of people trying to make political capital out of any issue that is of national interest.

sean:

Interesting conclusion. Why Christianity? why not any of the other thousand odd religions around the world? What's wrong with all those?

And what sort of Christianity: there are lots? - the kind that Northern Ireland has enjoyed all these years or the kind that murders abortion clinic staff in the USA? Or perhaps you mean the kind of Christianity that enables the rape of children and then protects the perpetrators?

No GRF, I can't help but think that if there is a sure cure it is not Christianity.

Rodf:

30 Jul 2014 10:11:15am

That gets the award for the most ignorant post today. The Russian backed rebels are not acting in the name of any religion, they are simply political rebels trying to do as much damage to the Ukraine as possible Nothing in the Ukrainian civil war has to do with religion.

mike:

30 Jul 2014 3:18:49pm

Jungle Boy, no, thought it not a crime, but like those who said they would not sit next to an Aboriginal it is also shocking bigotry (though not endorsing actual violence in the latter case). Would you want to import more people with such attitudes into this country? I don't.

Wining Pom:

splod1:

29 Jul 2014 9:58:47pm

No! They are not following the tenets of Islam.Islam does NOT demand that Muslims "kill all who oppose the imposition of Sharia law and an Islamic state." Those who follow this group of nutcases have a warped interpretation of Islam. The majority of Muslim are peaceful and moderate and know that the true jihad is the personal struggle that individuals engage in between their base desires and the goodness in all. It is not a fight against the infidel. I am not a Muslim or a Christian or a member of any religion, but I've done enough research to know this. The Quran also demands that devout Muslims respect all "Children of the Book": Christians, Muslims and Jews. The Quran is heavily based on the Old Testament. Suicide is strictly forbidden, which shows you that terrorists who use suicide bombing tactics are about as far from being true Muslims as you can get. Like you, I condemn the disgusting behaviour of radicals, but I refuse to tar all Muslims with the same brush. Personally, I'd be happy to see the disappearance of all organised religion, but, given human nature, I'm sure people would find something else to fight about.

Saucebottle:

splod1:

30 Jul 2014 8:46:42am

If people insist on denigrating Islam/all Muslims on the basis of the nastiness of a minority, then they need to be reminded of the truth. "The peaceful majority are irrelevant"??? That's an awful lot of irrelevance you're claiming there. The atrocities committed by the Nazi SS who claimed that "God is with us" can similarly not be used to condemn all Germans or all Christians for all time. Truth is never irrelevant. Just because some supposedly Christian Australians are racist and xenophobic, does not mean that we can characterise Australians as universally embodying these traits.

Fidanza:

30 Jul 2014 12:42:05am

GRF, you have a short memory. In the 90s Croats and Serbs fought each other and the Bosniaks in the Bosnian War. Massacres were commited by all parties (particularly the Serbs in spite of their Christianity). Some Australians went to fight in this war (particularly on the Croat side). The number of identified victims is currently at 97,207 (civilian and military casualties). These include 64,341 Bosniaks, 24,726 Serbs, and 7,602 Croats. Most of the victims were Moslems. About 1.8 million people were displaced by the war. Bosnia is now at peace because of a NATO intervention, and the adoption of a Swiss-style Federal Republican political model.

whohasthefish:

30 Jul 2014 6:40:45am

GRF: "...the compliant left", just where on earth do nutters like you sprout.

For god sakes this is not a left/right issue, it a right/wrong issue. Its an issue about religious fanatics and how they are brain washing and recruitment young people in Australia using modern social media platforms.

Your stereotyping of all Islamic peoples as murderers because their religion, according to you, instruct them to, kill all the infidels is bigotry in its most vile form.

I can assure you that I am what you would consider from the left and I am in no way compliant to the views or actions of religious nutters either Islamic, or Christian, or any other nonsensical make believe faith driven club.

The only solution is Christianity, what a load of tosh. Dream on mate and wake up, Islam, Judaism and Christianity are all just different versions of the same crap. The same roots all believing in their own preferred prophets because some twit told them to and what's so alarming is that it is all just a load of rubbish.

Let them all go and don't let them back, if they are that deluded then they are beyond help, just like GRF here.

blax5:

30 Jul 2014 2:53:28pm

No, religions should be relegated to the background to demonstrate that they are irrelevant in every day life. Only when religion no longer matters will there be fewer fanatics.

In the short term, it would be better if the bigger countries united in their endeavours to fight jihadis. After all, Chechnyans fought for a Caliphate in the Caucasus Mountains. Russia nabbed that, but how great their appetite will be now to prevent the Chechnyans gaining ground elsewhere is a new wildcard.

Mitor the Bold:

29 Jul 2014 7:36:46pm

I agree we should renounce whatever claim they have to be here, or intern them indefinitely as potential risks to national security. If they have just fought Jihad then they accept that there is a war between ideologies, and in a war it is legally permissible to intern potential enemy combatants until the end of that war.

I suggest camps on Manus or Christmas islands - on second thoughts that would be too brutal. They've only committed atrocities after all - it's not as though they've tried to claim asylum whilst simultaneously floating in a boat. It's important we don't lose our humanity in the face of those who have lost theirs.

Dove:

30 Jul 2014 8:02:40am

Every war and act of terrorism gets condemned in every mosque in australia and by senior clerics, but make peace- not war, isn't going to make the front page in the telegraph. The only views of a muslim that are reported are the nutjobs. Go t a mosque this friday. They'll let you in, and listen to the sermon and get back to me.

TGU:

30 Jul 2014 10:42:34am

What you say may well be true Dove although I doubt it, whatever the truth is though these moderate muslims rarely offer any public condemnation of these unspeakable acts which gives the public impression of tacit approval. If it were christians committing these atrocities I'm sure the christian clerics would be on TV every night voicing their disapproval.

Dove:

30 Jul 2014 11:01:24am

TGU You are half right. If they were Christians they would be interviewed on TV. Unless a muslim preaches hate, they don't get on. By same token, I didn't hear any Christians protesting about the recent anti-gay laws in Christian Uganda. Or about abortion laws in Ireland. Or about Eastern Orthodox rebels in Ukraine. An Algerian-Australian cleric is hardly responsible for what someone does in the tribal regions of Pakistan and a Malaysian can't condemn with any greater weight than you or I the maniacs in ISIL

theologin1:

30 Jul 2014 6:34:02pm

SO have you actually been inside every Mosque and listened to every Imam, like the one over here is WA who was quoted as saying "We will use democracy as a tool to gain power, then we will turn around and destroy it". And my favorite, "We will not stop until our flag is flying above Canberra". (Western Australian Newspaper 2013) This particular Imam must be a rare breed indeed. Another failed attempt by our Islamic apologist Dove.

The Concerned Citizen:

30 Jul 2014 1:56:18am

I agree, this article and the lazily thrown-together 'solutions' it proposes are absolute nonsense.Rehabilitation is a vastly costlier, more expensive option with only a small THEORETICAL probability of success- and that's being purely optimistic and ignoring the actual practical technical issues it raises.

Worse, it is an ambigious expectation upon the returnee to be subjected to it, or what it is actually supposed to achieve or even how it's supposed to work at all.And what exactly is it supposed to achieve? Post-war trauma isn't the half of the problems they have, merely a small piece. Prevent radicalisation? They were likely radicalized to begin with to be motivated to fight there- and in many cases lifelong.And then of course, any domestic troubles or cultural issues that may have motivated them to abandon or dislike Australia would STILL BE HERE when they get back, likely undoing whatever the 'therapy' was supposed to achieve.AND on top of it, what happens if 'rehab' isn't visibly working, or the returnee simply refuses to be involved? Are they to be detained until they change their ways as satisfied by whoever interviews them, or just let loose anyway?

Compared to this nonsense, the alternative policy of dissuading or preventing them returning entirely would cost almost nothing, and achieve a very high chance of successfully preventing any future problems.And while you may think it's "harsh", consider my last question about the author's alternative not working- either identical heavy-handed measures would be applied, or the entire exercise is non-compulsory and thus serves no purpose aside from 'asking nicely'.Threatening a standardized sentence for joining a terrorist group however (even treason as we are likely still stuck in the 'war on terror' and thus could legally label terrorist groups as enemies) or committing war crimes puts the perpetrators at liberty to simply remain free men abroad or otherwise on their return be charged in manner in line with our normal laws- and thus is arguably less heavy-handed.

religious prey:

Generality:

30 Jul 2014 4:41:29pm

The other elephant in the room says we can take out Nationality just because we want to live somewhere. But inside, except in rare cases, everything that makes us tick will come from our childhood upbringing.

For example. If you moved to Canada, if Australia was invaded by Canadians (just a hypothetical here) how would you feel? Like a Canadian? Or like an Australian?

Would you willingly take up arms to kill Australians? Because if Canadian now, and they were at war with Australia, wouldnt that be a fair enough thing to ask for?

Citizenship should carry quid pro quos. Any hostile or criminal activity (based on new country's laws) and out you go. See ya. And the whole family with you. Bye bye.

If that was done, people would think twice. Would put pressure on others not to act. And it becomes a responsibility, not a "right".

APM:

30 Jul 2014 11:34:01am

No its an indictment of our immigration system that we import people from an extreme cultural/religious societies and then expect some other than extremism and hostility to Western ways to happen. 'Our community' and 'schooling systems' are not failing except to the extent the Left says that all cultures are of equal value despite their actual content and refuses to address this because of some 'racism' bogeyman. This is what multiculturalism logically leads to - a liberal culture nurturing an illiberal culture that threatens to overwhelm us, and the Left is not equipped to recognise this and respond in ways that preserve their own broader progressive principles. Why does it take the Right to protect the Lefts' own values?

Ralph:

30 Jul 2014 5:29:02pm

David Hicks was not a failure of our immigration system, he was a poor unfortunate who stayed too long on an adventure holiday. He went to a country with a wild west culture that enabled him to do things he would never be allowed to do in Australia.

I know many who went to Pakistan and Afghanistan in the late 90s and early 2000s. Several of them left just before the troubles in the US (some planes hit some buildings) eventuated in an invasion..

A few went back in 2002 in uniform, with very mixed feelings about what they were doing.

Ozziefried:

30 Jul 2014 6:34:37pm

Nor do I want 'these potential terrorists back here'. I also do not want those who are rushing off to fight with the Israeli Defence Force (IDF) to 'defend' the indefencable, back here. Rockets are raining down on Israel - so give back the Occupied territories, stop building illegal settlements on illegally obtained land. This continuous illegal land grab by Israel is indefencable. Australians are fighting with/for extremists in Syria and Israel ok, but don't come back.

MDG:

29 Jul 2014 6:47:52pm

Definitely the simplest option, but a little difficult to do if (a) they only have Australian passports, since it's illegal to render someone stateless or (b) you can't prove that they were engaged in illegal activity because they weren't moronic enough to post stuff on social media or pose with a bunch of severed heads etc.

gbe:

MDG:

30 Jul 2014 9:35:56am

More difficult than it sounds, unfortunately. Extraterritorial jurisdiction - ie, the ability to prosecute people in Australia for crimes they didn't commit in Australia - is extremely limited. You'd also have great difficulty proving exactly what they did in the absence of evidence like videos of them cutting off heads or shooting people. And even then, it's reported that those warrants the AFP issued on those two Australians seen actually posing with severed heads allege only that they're members of terrorist groups, not that they committed murder.

Bruce:

29 Jul 2014 7:19:34pm

We have to take responsibility for our own. we want to send the creations of other nations back, so we have to accept our own back. What was that island in shark infested waters again. Great site for a prison.

TGU:

30 Jul 2014 11:06:27am

We can't do that Bruce, imagine the stampede of snivel rights lawyers jumping to their defence and what that would cost the Australian taxpayer. Better (and far cheaper) to invoke the old "outlaw" concept and just shoot them on sight.

whohasthefish:

30 Jul 2014 2:52:38pm

TGU, I was waiting for someone to actually get around to a proper solution to the problem and finally someone has hit the nail on the head. Just execute them.

I am serious. Is there anyone out there that believes that this fanatical psychopath posing with decapitated heads and bragging about his barbaric exploits has a right to live?. When he became an animal then he relinquished that right.

Let him come back to Australia, grab him at the airport and take this animal out into the desert and put him down. Let the crows have the body.

If you want to satisfy your moral outrage then yes by all means have a trial, but if found to have committed crimes against humanity then boom, kill the bastard.

We have over 7 billion people on this planet. Do we really need people like this. Culling the animals amongst us makes sense. Martin Bryant, and that other animal that raped and killed Jill Meagher are other prime candidates. Bring back the death penalty and use it.

Come on people, you know I am right, while we are there save some bullets for all the fanatical religious nutters in our society that preach hate and violence, no matter their confected faith.

Aaron:

29 Jul 2014 5:51:56pm

Rehabilitation, mental health experts and integration......?

NO. NO. NO.

Have a good look on line to see what 'experiences' these people CHOOSE to have.

They chose to do this and their is no Australian taxpayer dollars should be spent trying to placate, pacify and rectify rabid religious fanatics who will no doubt turn on Australian society as soon as one of their self proclaimed leaders issues a fatwahbecause we offend their god by the way our women dress or some other B.S.

Perhaps the rehabilitation, mental health experts and integration efforts would be better spent on fleeing Iraqi Christians - or whats left of them.

Harry:

29 Jul 2014 5:56:46pm

Exactly what is the counter narrative? ?Jihad? is a very real concept in Islamic belief. It has two aspects: (1) the Islamic requirement that the individual must carry out jihad to be a worthy Muslim and (2) the warfare of the community against infidels and those who attack or resist Islam. All Muslims are under mandate to participate in jihad because they believe that Islam is the correct and perfect religion and all other religions are corrupt. Not only are they to follow the teachings of the Qur?an, but they are also to emulate the model of their prophet Muhammad, who led his fighting forces into battle to defend Islam and to make Islam dominant.

Dave:

29 Jul 2014 7:36:03pm

Perfectly said well well.

You are absolutely right about religion. The real reason Cory Bernardi hates sharia law is those muslims are stealing his best ideas. The enemy of the conservative religious misogynist is actually the atheist liberal feminist, not the other kind of conservative religious misogynist.

The Concerned Citizen:

Too hot?No- to easy to disregard after hearing it. If it were so easy to transform a religious fanatic into an atheist by calling it a "fairy tale"- religion would have ceased to exist centuries ago.

The truth is, there really is no counter-narrative. Family culture and the culture of the local area (And the way they interact over a person's whole lifetime) have far more impact than a few catchy slogans clearly pedaled by people essentially trying to 'trick' them- and that's how they see it.

Applaudanum:

30 Jul 2014 8:52:01am

Oh there's a counter narrative, you see it in action at the counter:

'That's 4 weeks at 2 per week counselling sessions at $150 a pop, plus mysterious 'government customer' surcharge of 25% comes to a total of $1500. But that's not for you to worry about, the government's got this for you. Take your prescription to the next counter'

'Thank you, sir, that will be $23.60 for your medications this month, yes you will be expected to take them for years, the government will pick up the remaining $220'.

Dove:

29 Jul 2014 7:07:16pm

Jihad comes in many forms. There can be a jihad to improve literacy rates. There can be jihad to loose weight. It means a struggle for improvement and it is an obligation on all muslims to try and be better people and to struggle for improvements. It can also mean war, but current factions and armed gangs aside, there hasn't been a religious war in centuries. There is no islamic requirement to fight in a war. None.

There is also nothing about warfare against infidels. Feel free to cherry pick a sura or three about killing unbelievers but 7th century exhortations given during a war are hardly applicable to today. Just as the Pope doesn't advocate death for adultery anymore.

Ask some muslims if they want to wage war on you and get back to me. I'll bet there too bust paying the mortgage and making sure their kids do their homework. But I don't believe that you know any and that your opinions and edicts come straight from your isolated throne

lilly:

29 Jul 2014 5:58:44pm

I guess this approach could be tried but its inevitable that people will want to go and fight for what they consider to be a worthy cause. I'm also certain that the propaganda machines for the fighters in Syria and Iraq put forward a very convincing case for the age group they're targeting. It probably ticks all the boxes offering a chance to be a hero, fight against oppression, protect Islam, be part of a brotherhood of warriors etc... In response the government's message will seem pretty tame and could easily be countered by the Syrian fighters as anti-Islamic.

The best the government could do would be to cancel the passport and citizenship of people who are found to be fighting overseas. At least this will stop them from coming home to carry on the war in Australia.

The Concerned Citizen:

30 Jul 2014 2:22:03am

Precisely.If we put forward propaganda, it will simply be recognized as such and ignored as deception.And this applies to the 'rehabilitation'- we are arguably just giving private propaganda sessions and hoping the audience will disregard a lifetime of belief based on messages the author wasn't even able to think of- and of course, will be quickly forgotten when they are sent back to where they (and their beliefs) began.Worst still, any attempts to inhibit fighters leaving (by either messages or more direct measures) would make us appear in their eyes as accomplices to protecting Assad from facing justice, either by force or perverting their messages.

Allowing them to leave but making clear our intent to prevent their return would likely be met with less hostility- we LET them fulfill their wish of fighting their tyrant AND living in their ideal society, and imposing only a cost that they never return- which they will unlikely be motivated to.

Russ:

29 Jul 2014 6:04:15pm

Completely agree. We urgently need to stand up to the extremist messages promoted by international terrorist organisations such as the IDF. Australia citizens have been recruited to fight for the IDF, before returning home to spread their hateful, extremist agenda. The IDF controls it's message by dictating the partisan language that journalists must use in their reporting. If we are to hope for peace in the middle east, we must subvert the Australian media and government's complicity in spreading IDF propaganda.

Harry Stacy:

29 Jul 2014 6:21:45pm

I suppose once these Australian citizens return from the IDF overseas they will commit terrorist attacks and murder Australian's at home. Hmm I doubt it. Insight and perspective are wonderful things Russ.

Russ:

29 Jul 2014 7:00:18pm

Harry, I don't expect that IDF combatants will commit terrorist acts on their return to Australia, but I am convinced they will be oblidged to participate in terrorist acts in Palestine. They will almost certainly promote Australia's complicity in these acts upon their return. If Australia takes issue with it's citizens participating in terrorism, it could at least be consistent in identifying and censuring all terrorist organisations.

CR:

29 Jul 2014 8:19:07pm

The IDF is not a terrorist organisation - it is an army of a nation state, it is also an army that attempts to follow the rules of armed conflict albeit it makes mistakes like every other army. While you may think it is an occupying and oppressing force unwanted by the Palestinians it is not unlawful.

Hamas, which fires rockets from schools and hospitals intentionally at civilians seeks the IDF to fire at those same positions so to cause civilian casualties. Just because one side is much stronger than the other doesn't affect the legality of the fight. Who then is the criminal - the fighters that hide behind women and children hoping that they be killed, or the fighters going through a legal targeting process deciding whether to retaliate. Who is the criminal? ? To me Hamas, Hezbollah, ISIS and their Iranian backers are the real terrorists.

Eric the Echidna:

30 Jul 2014 8:12:01am

CR: "While you may think it is an occupying and oppressing force unwanted by the Palestinians it is not unlawful."

The occupation of Palestine and the blockade/siege of Gaza are illegal. The Palestinians are entitled to self-determination and to resist the occupation - within the bounds of international law. The Israelis do not have the right to prevent Palestinian self-determination nor to defend the occupation.

Zing:

30 Jul 2014 11:38:43am

Eric. There has been no ruling on the legality of the Israeli occupation.

Occupation isn't illegal in itself. In the absence of a legal ruling by a full bench of the ICJ, the Israeli occupation is presumed legal under law. Meaning your opinion is literally at odds with the law.

The occupation of the Palestinian territories occurred because the land was seized from Egypt and Jordan in the course of a war. There are no special circumstances which make this occupation inherently illegal, when compared to any other occupation of land in recent history.

It is very unlikely that the ICJ would ever rule that an occupying force has no right to enforce an occupation. Doing so would be inconsistent with the occupying force's right to self defence in the face of attack. It is also incompatible with an occupying force's responsibility under the Geneva Conventions to enforce control and order over the regions they occupy.

You have posted a single advisory opinion in the past. But it is not a legal ruling. And since it is at odds with basic legal principles, it's safe to conclude that the opinion and yours are fatally flawed.

Eric the Echidna:

30 Jul 2014 12:27:24pm

Zing: "The occupation of the Palestinian territories occurred because the land was seized from Egypt and Jordan in the course of a war."

A war started by Israel. The land might have been controlled by Egypt and Jordan but was still part of Palestine. Israel has refused to withdraw from the occupied territories and has, in fact colonised them.

I remind you that the acquisition of territory by war is prohibited.

"It is very unlikely that the ICJ would ever rule that an occupying force has no right to enforce an occupation. Doing so would be inconsistent with the occupying force's right to self defence in the face of attack."

Your opinion. The Palestinians have the right to resist occupation and the right to self-determination. The Israelis have no right to deny them these. These are basic principles.

"It is also incompatible with an occupying force's responsibility under the Geneva Conventions to enforce control and order over the regions they occupy."

Israel has persistently and numerously breached its responsibilities as an occupying power.

"You have posted a single advisory opinion in the past. But it is not a legal ruling."

It is the opinion of the ICJ which had a precedent in a previous ruling.

"And since it is at odds with basic legal principle..."

That would be your opinion of basic legal principle, which cannot said to be without bias.

Zing:

30 Jul 2014 1:45:43pm

Both Jordan and Egypt have willingly surrendered their claims to the territory occupied by Israel. The ceasefire agreements did not require Israel to withdraw from those areas.

You are arguing that the Palestinians can use force against Israeli occupation forces, but Israeli occupation forces aren't permitted to use force in return - this is incompatible with the right of soldiers to defend themselves from harm.

You are arguing that Israel has the rights, responsibilities and duties of an occupying power, but no right to physically enforce these things - a bizarre position seemingly incompatible with the concept of occupation.

You are arguing that Israel's occupation is illegal because it is against the wishes of the Palestinians. But since all occupations are unilateral yet not all occupations are illegal, your reasoning is clearly flawed.

In all cases, your arguments cannot be correct. If they were, it would twist international law to the point of absurdity.

Eric the Echidna:

Zing: "Both Jordan and Egypt have willingly surrendered their claims to the territory occupied by Israel."

The OPT are, and were, Palestinian. They now constitute, as recognised by 138 members of the UN in the UNGA vote on the recognition of Palestine as a non-member state, the state of Palestine.

"You are arguing that the Palestinians can use force against Israeli occupation forces, but Israeli occupation forces aren't permitted to use force in return - this is incompatible with the right of soldiers to defend themselves from harm."

What don't you understand of the principle of the right of self-determination and the right to resist occupation?

Israel as the belligerent occupier and besieger/blockader is the aggressor. It should comply with international law and cease its occupation and end the blockade and siege. Then, if Palestinians use force against Israel, Israel will have legal rights.

I note that you did not address the multiple and continuing breaches of the responsibilities of an occupying power by Israel.

"You are arguing that Israel's occupation is illegal because it is against the wishes of the Palestinians."

I am arguing for the RIGHTS of the Palestinians. Your misrepresentation of this point is indicative of the standard of your argument.

"In all cases, your arguments cannot be correct. If they were, it would twist international law to the point of absurdity."

Zing:

30 Jul 2014 3:55:00pm

Eric.

Look at the international laws on occupation. You will see that while occupation is always a temporary state, there is no expressed requirement for an occupier to end their occupation by any particular time or in response to any particular event.

If Israel were breaching it's obligations as an occupying force, this provides an argument that Israel should meet these obligations. It doesn't mean the occupation is illegal and must end. You are confusing the legality of the occupation itself with the legality of the occupier's conduct on occupied territory.

As I've shown, your arguments make no sense when applied to legal principles. Since you've made no attempt to explain the contradictions in your argument, I'll assume you can't and insist that you do.

Palestinians have the right to resist. Israelis have the right to occupy. I'm accepting the totality of the law. Your bias means you only accept half of the law.

Zing:

30 Jul 2014 5:38:04pm

An opinion article in a law journal? Surely you're joking, Eric.

If you could provide me with a binding legal judgement which *expressly* indicates that occupations must cease by a certain time or in certain circumstances, please provide it. Or failing that, an instrument of law.

In the absence of these things, your journal article would seem to be taking creative liberties with the law of occupation. This is even worse than your arguments, which merely get the law wrong.

Eric the Echidna:

Zing, did you even read the article? If you did, did you understand it?

"If you could provide me with a binding legal judgement which *expressly* indicates that occupations must cease by a certain time or in certain circumstances"

Judgments are made on specific cases. I did provide you with the advisory of the ICJ. The jurisdiction of the ICJ is:

"The International Court of Justice acts as a world court. The Court has a dual jurisdiction : it decides, in accordance with international law, disputes of a legal nature that are submitted to it by States (jurisdiction in contentious cases); and it gives advisory opinions on legal questions at the request of the organs of the United Nations or specialized agencies authorized to make such a request (advisory jurisdiction)."

I also provided a precedent:

"In 1971, the ICJ ruled that South Africa?s occupation of Namibia had become illegal because it refused to carry out good-faith negotiations to end the occupation. It is beyond dispute that Israel has failed to carry out good-faith negotiations to end the occupation of Palestinian territory. On the Namibia precedent, the Israeli occupation is also illegal. The only ?right? Israel can claim is?in the words of the United States at the time of the Namibia debate??to withdraw its administration?immediately and thus put an end to its occupation.?"

"In the absence of these things, your journal article would seem to be taking creative liberties with the law of occupation. This is even worse than your arguments, which merely get the law wrong."

Who are you to make that judgment? As opposed to, for example the first named author the article Orna Ben-Naftali, who is an Israeli professor of law. Or Aeyel M Gross of Tel Aviv University.

In conclusion I ask for an apology for your earlier misrepresentation of my comments.

Jason:

29 Jul 2014 8:25:08pm

Not sure if you were being funny there, Russ? Calling the IDF a terrorist organisation, if you were in fact being serious, is utterly facile. How many terrorists groups send medical teams to international disaster zones, for example?

religious prey:

Kerry:

29 Jul 2014 6:05:05pm

As much as anything it is a mental health problem, common in anyone who seeks to satisfy an imaginary god and extremist teachings by those acting out on their prejudices.Lots of luck with the local communities who believe in the same god though perhaps with less extremist beliefs. How many moderates actually sympathize with follows of Jihad. By not actively criticizing they are lending tacit support for these views.Christianity has only moderated its views since society becoming more secular. Hoefully Islam will take less than a few centuries to become a peaceful religion

Mitor the Bold:

29 Jul 2014 6:42:57pm

You're helping indoctrinate more people in these poisonous ideas through your taxes that subsidise private religious schools, churches, synagogues and mosques, and chaplains in secular state schools. This problem won't go anywhere while its maintenance is supported by the state.

Anyway, such conflicts were fought in the past between communism and fascism - it's not just religion but all forms of totalitarian thinking that needs to be be challenged in our education systems and our national conversation.

maj:

29 Jul 2014 9:15:59pm

Mitor wants society to change from belief in a ?fairytale God? to belief in Astrology, Numerology, the sanctity of the United Nations and its decrees, as well as witches, goblins, dragons, black magic, shamanism, voodoo, palmistry, magic, mysticism, runic revelation of secrets, ancestor worship, idol worship etc etc etc.

Mitor the Bold:

30 Jul 2014 8:40:46am

I think you'll find that I'd like to change society from a belief in "belief" to a society based on facts and knowledge. Belief is just a proxy for knowledge proffered by people with weak minds and reactionary cognitive reflexes.

senior40:

29 Jul 2014 6:20:07pm

There cannot be a realistic counter-argument. Those people have made their bed...let them sleep in it.Cancel their Australian Passport and do not let them back.We know, that our own soldiers that served in Afghanistan are substantially affected by what they experienced. How much more dangerous are people that deliberately carry out cruel and barbaric deeds. Every fair-minded Australian will think likewise, I am sure.

Michael:

29 Jul 2014 6:21:23pm

The worst is yet to come. If the Iraqi army starts winning and the ISIS fighters and their families leave in fear of their lives they will be seeking asylum in countries like Australia. Who knows what will happen in Syria, will those fighting start seeking asylum in Australia as well? All we are doing is bringing people into Australia and Europe is facing the same problems of people whose religion is their defining character with its lack of tolerance for other religions and hatred for others who do not believe as them. There are reports of a Muslim cleric preaching at a mosque in Berlin encouraging those there to hate and kill Jews. How many have conveniently forgotten the uncovered meat comment about women from the Australian Muslim cleric. Many are living in denial and criticise anyone who raises these issues. They need to start taking responsibility for their part in what is going to happen. Because the bombings and beheading in London and the bombing in Boston and the planned but thwarted attacks in Australia are going to happen more frequently because of those who have allowed a religion to flourish in Austrlia that is not tolerant, peaceful and even at war with itself.

Dove:

29 Jul 2014 7:18:08pm

You've seen a muslim cleric on TV say bad things in Berlin? I've seen muslim clerics in real life, right here in Australia, lead prayers for dead Israelis and their families. I've been in muslim countries where the mosques and christian churches are built literally next to each other. In Indonesia there the buddhist temples on the other side as well. Hundreds of millions of people coughed up cash yesterday for charity. Did you? Religion has and will continue to inspire the worst depravity and noblest acts in humanity. There 1.6 billion muslims in a faith that is just as diverse of christianity, with it's mainstream and it's sects. You need to broaden your perspective. It's like judging christianity by the KKK or by child molestation your faulty logic is judging a big whole by a small sample.

Bruc3:

Peter of Larrakeyah:

29 Jul 2014 6:27:23pm

The problem is that there is a reluctance in the media to mention the words "muslim" or "Islam" in relation to these acts of terrorism. By doing that, it is sanitised and the real problem is not discussed.

Don't believe me? Look at the focus on the 1,000+ people killed in Gaza by Israel but almost no mention of muslims killing tens of thousands of other muslims merely because they have a different view to Islam and the interpretation of the Koran.

In terms of Gaza, think of the mentality of those in Hamas who deliberately shoot their rockets from schools and hospitals knowing that it will invite retaliation. How do people like these win any PR war and yet, thanks to the Left, they are not only winning but they are encouraged to go even harder.

Now we find that such people are now in Australia and we act surprised and horrified. Unfortunately, it will only get worse. It is already too late.

MDG:

29 Jul 2014 6:52:59pm

The atrocities of ISIS towards other Muslims and the sectarian bloodbath in Iraq have attracted acres of media coverage over the last few years. That the media's focus is now on Gaza is a result of the media having the attention span of a coked-up mayfly rather than any conspiracy or political correctness. So no, I don't believe you, though I will agree on your view of Hamas and its pretty obviously deliberate provocation of massive Israeli responses against civilian areas.

Sille Bob:

29 Jul 2014 7:04:00pm

>merely because they have a different view to Islam and the interpretation of the Koran

ISIS is attacking Iraq because Syria is too hard of a nut to crack for them. The US/UK/Australian trained Iraqi Army dropped their weapons and ran, leaving massive supplies of munitions and specialist military equipment in the hands of ISIS. It's the ultimate Western irony, and serves as a metaphor for western intervention in the Middle East as a whole. Everything we do in the region blows back on us, so what's even the point? At this stage, Iraq under Saddam would be preferable to the hell the Iraqis are going through.

Remember, the opposition to Assad in Syria (remember the Civil War in Syria? Must be old news these days....) was funded and backed by America. Senator John McCain was in Syria having his photo taken with ISIS rebels.

The Concerned Citizen:

30 Jul 2014 9:13:11am

Actually we don't know if McCain was posing next to ISIS or a different bunch of Islamists (described at least as much by himself). All that was known at the time was that all of these groups were still part of the FSA umbrella.

ISIS and the FSA, just like each and every militant group in the region, are enemies- and the USA wouldn't be stupid enough to fund an Al Queda-derived group again AFTER 911 as opposed to the group they publically obsessed about (FSA).

Not that this justifies McCain's behaviour in my opinion, and I imagine Americans looked at that photo and were relieved they didn't vote that lunatic into the White House.

Tory Boy:

Dove:

30 Jul 2014 11:05:52am

Having lived in Ireland for ten years I'd say their take is that it's a war of nationalism and self determination. Many of the great Irish "Patriots" were protestants. There are some Catholics in the north who want to be a part of Britain. They are Unionists, although they wouldn't boast about it too loud. And there are Protestants who feel Irish and want to be a part of the Republic. Religion reinforces the cleavage line but the point of difference is political. If you want to politely find out who's who, ask them what's the second biggest city in Ulster. Those that say Derry and those that say Londonderry gives it away!

JohnnoH:

29 Jul 2014 7:34:19pm

Dear Peter let's conveniently forget the Israelis who have been killed. Yes there have been more Palestinians killed and atrocities have been committed by both sides. This could have been over two weeks agao but those butchers from Hamas said no!

Eric the Echidna:

30 Jul 2014 11:52:22am

JohnnoH: "This could have been over two weeks ago but those butchers from Hamas said no!"

I assume you are referring to the Egyptian ceaseefire proposal lodged without discussion with Hamas, and which Hamas might not have even see, Prior to that there was a ceasefire offer from Hamas which was ignored.

Caffettierra Moka:

29 Jul 2014 8:42:47pm

And what the hell did you think happened when the USA invaded Afghanistan. Their 'good muslims' used the opportunity to wreak revenge on the 'bad ones'. They would round up people from the villages not friendly and sell them for a 5,000 USD bounty as 'Taliban'.

And why don't you and all the other posters just come out and say it; as far as you are concerned the only 'good muslim is a dead one'. You so want to, doncha?

You are just scared to death by the relentless propaganda that everyone of them is just itching to slip through your window one night and slit your familys' throats. Your actual chance of being targetted and killed by Islamic extremists is still, as always, just about zero percent. The biggest risk? Some drunk guy getting behind the wheel and crashing into you.

Right Fred:

29 Jul 2014 9:38:28pm

Peter, I think you are partly correct, not using the "muslim" or "Islam" in relation to these acts of terrorism is what the leftist media does, especially the ABC. Get a variety of media sources and you will see I am 100% correct.

Mitor the Bold:

29 Jul 2014 10:02:57pm

"And let's not forget the hundreds of young Jewish Australians who have joined the Israeli Army..."

There is a difference between joining a democratic nation's army to defend the country and joining a band of rebels to fight a holy jihad. Ex-Israeli servicemen and women might return to Australia brutalised, or with PTSD, but no more so than Australian soldiers from Afghanistan or Iraq. Israelis don't regard non-Israelis as infidels or kuffir and they don't proselytise their religion. In fact, a significant number of Israelis and 'Jews' are atheists.

If we accept as a nation that wars must sometimes be fought then we must surely accept that those returning from those wars might be a danger to society. The difference with jihadis is that we know for certain that they are a danger to societies like ours, war or not.

Maybe, if we are involved in a war - a war on terror as we call it, or a jihad as our opponents call it - then we should re-introduce internment for potential enemy combatants until the war is at an end as per the Hague Convention of 1907. We detain asylum seekers in this manner, after all, and most of what I read on here against asylum seekers seems to be regarding their potential jihadi intent.

Dove:

30 Jul 2014 7:43:44am

Mitor, only someone trying to be deliberately provocative could draw a similarity between the IDF and terrorists. Where a legitimate comparison can be made is on the effects that war has one people. One of the main arguments against these young men going to fight in Syria and Iraq is that the effects of war are such that they might come home more damaged and even more extreme. That's a fair point. We know from our own experiences that returned aussie servicemen can suffer horrendous mental health, behavioural and social problems. War is a health hazard to both the individual and society as a whole and we shouldn't be encouraging or allowing it in any situations other than those necessary for national survival. I also think that the state should hold the monopoly on lethal force. This means it's a bad idea to let young australians go and fight for anyone, state player or not. It's bad for them and ultimately it's bad for us

Mitor the Bold:

30 Jul 2014 8:31:24am

"This means it's a bad idea to let young australians go and fight for anyone, state player or not. It's bad for them and ultimately it's bad for us"

But we send young men to fight for America in Iraq for worthy causes. When our decision making is already so corrupted by political expedience then how can we call those fighting for their worthy causes un-Australian?

It's surely our culpability in joining unworthy military expeditions that makes us hypocrites when we, legitimately in my view, condemn jihadis. An unworthy cause is an unworthy cause, whether it's Islamists against Assad or Americans against Saddam. Our righteous condemnation has been undermined by our less than righteous participation.

aGuy:

30 Jul 2014 4:31:36pm

The biggest difference is that Israel is not calling for destruction of any part of Australian society. Israel accepts different religions. ISIS & Hamas and others do notIsrael supports democracy. ISIS & Hamas do not.Israel has a register of its soldiers and clear uniform. ISIS & Hamas do not.

I personally believe that the crime should be an Australian not receiving prior permission from the Australian government before joining a foreign armed force. This way Australian citizens will be required to inform the government. The option if rejection is made is either to forfeit citizenship by joining or not joining.

Dissenter:

29 Jul 2014 6:45:40pm

Anyone who is fighting overseas in a war as a mercenary should be not only stopped on re-entry to Australia but held pending investigation of what activities they were involved in. This should apply as a modus operandi as a normal part of Australian security processes.It is paramount that Australians are protected from the threat of terrorism and attack of any kind.Mercenaries who have been trained and actively involved in war have the capacity to be dangerous people.It is only commonsense that the AFP and intelligence undertake scrutiny and possess knowledge to identify likely people and also the capacity to take action in Australia's best interests.

Ricardo:

29 Jul 2014 6:49:06pm

Why go to all that bother of cancelling their passports?

The poor numpties will just get on a boat and claim asylum - surely none of the bleeding heart brigade would dare deny these poor souls, fleeing from persecution and in need our protection, a live in Australia?

After all, in a few short years they could apply to bring out their new 'family' - we wouldn't want to stop reunions now would we?

JohnnoH:

29 Jul 2014 7:37:10pm

That's bs Ricardo and you know it. Anyway better to be a bleeding heart and than sub-human like those who think it's alright to illegally intecept boats international waterrs and lock them up in hulks.

Gias:

29 Jul 2014 8:27:30pm

Sadly true! Not all the content that you wrote but the point that you're trying to make. In my point view I would assume travelling with boat and asylum seeking should be extremely rare case (once in a decade maybe). Generally you cannot give asylum to anyone who has problem with their nation because I guarantee that would make like half of the world population. The solution is not giving asylum to some individuals who dare to violate and disrespect Australian borders, instead all that Australia can do is put diplomatic pressure on countries like China, India, or whatever and help them to resolve their issues. Giving asylum to some selected individuals wont solve the problem but will intensify it.

The Concerned Citizen:

30 Jul 2014 9:23:30am

Technically both Liberals and Labor, up until John Howard got elected and implemented our current asylum approach.

-Menzies signed us up to the refugee protocol (while still retaining the White Australia policy- obviously he only had white people escaping communists in mind when he signed it).-Fraser extended offers of asylum to Islamic refugees during the wars in the middle east.-Keating continued it and famously overturned security orders to deport extremist preachers (Hilali), as he needed the votes from the kind of people that would prefer Hilali remained in Australia.

Waterloo Sunset:

Bruce:

29 Jul 2014 7:17:43pm

There is no message to counter.There are smiles on these people's faces. they enjoy the pain they cause and are not fit members of any religion or society. Even if a person believed that the only way to correct an error was to kill they would not delight in it like these do.

OverIt:

Dove:

30 Jul 2014 10:38:54am

All of the peak islamic bodies and their leadership have condemned these things time and time again but it makes better press to find some lunatic with a constituency of none advocating extremism. Sermons in mosques do likewise. Australian mosques operate in a very non denominational way. Imagine a mosque in morocco which would be of a particular branch or islam, within a particular school and would be attending by a homogenous population. Mosques here cater to everyone from everywhere. Gallipoli mosque in sydney was founded by turks but everyone in the area attends. Preston mosque in melbourne was founded by albanians but likewise, everyone in the area attends. This makes their messages apolitical and very, very broad. I've participated in prayers for dead israelis and their families. I have no doubt that there are underground and back street preachers peddling hate and violence, but my point is that they are not mainstream. They are a marginalised minority. Every domestic terrorism bust in australia took place because of tip offs from within the australian muslim community

Stoops to conquer:

29 Jul 2014 7:23:24pm

Well let's just bring more of them in then - this outstanding successes of our refugee immigration policy; I doubt these jokers or their families arrived as skilled migrants; and if they did, there's much more wrong with our immigration selection system than at first glance.

Why must we insist on putting our head in a noose with such undiscriminating naivety just so some bleeding heart can hold their heads high like little Jack Horner and say 'what a good boy am I' to a world that really couldn't give a rat's?

We can expect more, not less, of this because of past mistakes in our immigration policy we still fail to rectify. Criminal neglect. Is it going to take a Bali type bomb in Darling Harbour to wake this nation up? These people will never assimilate and only want to harm us.

It's only a matter of when not if when terror reaches our shores. Would you trust ASIO to adequately protect your safety given their abysmal screening process failures to date?

sean:

30 Jul 2014 10:56:31am

Some of them were born here - how far back do you go in blaming immigration? How do you know that any of them or their families arrived as refugees? Why take that position unless you know?What is your evidence for linking refugee immigration to terrorism?

If you don't actually know the answers to these questions, yet you still choose to focus on refugee policy as the terrorism danger, you could be looking the wrong way when the real danger hits. Is that what you want?

I say - people who use this issue as a weapon to attack those whose politics they oppose are helping to create exactly the kind of strife we're all keen to keep out of Australia.

Focus instead on evidence based decision making - don't take a stand unless you have well supported reasons for doing so.

Pavo:

29 Jul 2014 7:28:50pm

It seems that any conflict - even those which have at their base, some reason (like the Irish issue), inevitably attracts the lunatic fringe. Once they have grasped the simple elements of an idea, they use it to justify a rabid desire for adventure, to be part of a tribe, to be a hero, and to commit acts of violence.

And of course, any original argument gets completely swamped by the tide of violence, and intelligent argument gets trumped by those who simply get their kicks from a bloodthirsty obsession with inflicting pain and grief upon others.

Combine this with a religion - Islam - which in many parts of the world still languishes in a state of medieval folklore and you have a real recipe for trouble, more extreme than any other example I can think of. Add a goodly dose of injustice meted out to Palestinians and there's your tinderbox.

gbe:

29 Jul 2014 7:41:48pm

You open your boarders this is what you give a home too and anyone who doesn't think these people will bring terror to your city is a complete idiot.

Remember Australia is not at war and no Australian should be taking arms and killing anyone you choose to do that your no longer Australian your a stateless soldier of fortune and should be considered a National threat.

Dove:

30 Jul 2014 8:09:26am

Maybe, but I think you could make a case that given australia has had troops fighting in overseas wars for over a decade, you could define that as being at war. Regardless of what you call it, what do we do if someone comes here to kill us like we have gone there to kill them? We'll probably pretend we never saw it coming

The Concerned Citizen:

Given our circumstances you are in part correct- our participation in the past decade's wars have certainly inflamed our predicament... but overall it obscures what would have still been true.

If Australia remained neutral during Afghanistan and Iraq, nothing would be different as far as the relationship between 'home grown' extremists and ourselves (ask Sweden)- they would have found another excuse to hate or blame us for their views, just as they found a way to blame the west for NOT invading Syria in the same breath as demanding we 'get out of their lands'.So gbe's point largely stands.

Worse, consider this: much of the opposition to intervention in Syria came from our Iraq hangover; thus we may have consequently been dragged into THIS war instead- with far worse results.

HPH:

When you say "...came from our Iraq hangover" whom do you mean exactly?

Why don't you state clearly those who opposed (an international) intervention in Syria to topple Assad from power?

Which politicians and political figures.

However, the facts on the ground are different;

There is no need to invade Syria with a US-led coalition: 1) USA is broke 2) USA is supplying foreign mercenaries to fight in Syria, USA don't have enough combat soldiers left in the military - now most of them are civilians and having therapies 3) USA is supplying (thru 2nd and 3nd parties) funds, medical help, arms & munitions to the ISIS and other rebel groups in their war against Syrian Army.

Those in the know in political circles in Australia are well aware of these facts but the MSM is telling us a different story.

Gias:

29 Jul 2014 7:42:09pm

Obviously a person who is willing to fight for the sake of other nations no longer can be called Australian and for them having an Australian passport doesn't make sense. According to this Norwegian study they might not be an immediate threat for the community, but they surely will underscore the nation's reputation around the world. Hence, their passports should be revoked immediately. Furthermore, the fact that they can be radicalized in this community indicates that there is a fundamental problem that needs to be addressed quickly. After all, we have to find out how they become so extremist who made them so and destroy the source. I reckon its is very unlikely they become like that through online channels there has to be some connections inside.

sam:

29 Jul 2014 7:46:08pm

How can you counter the narrative when young people see our friend Israel commit crimes in Gaza while we remain timid with our response? and when we support countries that illegally go to war such as the Iraq Invasion?

I believe our young people are fed up with the hypocrisy and the paper thin soap operas that saturate our television sets whenever there is conflict and looking for something they can stand for even if their choices are wrong from our point of view

aGuy:

30 Jul 2014 4:44:47pm

ISIS did not start with the problem of Iraq sanctioned murder. It started with the problem of not liking its government and not liking a different branch of Islam. Joining an army or not will only allow ISIS "re-education" to go slower or faster.

Nothing To See Here:

aGuy:

30 Jul 2014 4:43:22pm

The problem is with jurisdiction. How do you prove what someone did in a land the criminal investigators (police) can not enter? Further, its the responsibility of the jurisdiction they committed the crime in.

The easier target is just claiming they joined an armed group without Australia's permission. This would automatically make new groups illegal to join simply because permission is not given.

sean:

30 Jul 2014 11:02:58am

A well thought out and reasonable solution - can't see that causing any issues at all. Seriously, what is wrong with our lawmakers when an ABC commenter can solve the problem in one sentence? Makes you wonder.

kim:

29 Jul 2014 8:26:48pm

The supply of weapons to these people and all war zones must be cut off, by the international military-industrial complex. There must be a world ceasefire. The world's attention must turn, as one, to the problems that threaten the whole of humanity. Starting with ebola, which is now out of control in west Africa and waiting to get on a plane near you. When these problems have been solved, then humanity can, if it insists, get back to warring.

CR:

29 Jul 2014 8:30:10pm

There is only one group in the world that fights everyone and anyone. They are fighting from Europe to Southern Africa, from west Africa to The Philippines, from Russia to Australia. Their fighting is sometimes called a freedom struggle or liberation but to most of us it is terrorism, and terrorism against us.

Why has virtually every Western country got a terrorism problem? Who are the terrorists in nearly every country? Why are the same countries which give asylum to refugees have some of those same people turn guns on them?

Guess which group? Until the vast, vast majority of them renounce their violence then there is no reason to take any more into the West.

Ash.R.:

observer:

29 Jul 2014 8:55:37pm

When these people arrive back in Australia, they should be turned over to the Hague and face the courts for war crimes. Beheading people has got to be one of the most heinous barbaric crimes and belongs in the seventh century.

sean:

30 Jul 2014 11:19:23am

OK, it's horrific but mainly visually. In effect, how is it worse than lethal injection, chemical weapons, being shot, shrapnel or having a building explode around you?

I'd take it over a slow death from cancer any day, yet my country will force me to endure that rather than allow me to die painlessly at my own hand. I'd have had more chance of a merciful end in the 7th century.

I'm reminded of the Iraqi father I saw on the news holding pieces of his child and crying - the child was a "collateral damage" victim of US bombing. He might not have appreciated the differences between ways of killing people that you do.

I'm just saying - let's not be too quick to label others as barbaric - some of the victims might not agree with you.

Dove:

rockpicker:

29 Jul 2014 9:26:19pm

Have we forgotten that two years ago we were supporting these people to overthrow the Syrian government, despite the obvious risks. Now, we have seen the resultant chaos and they are enemies. e creat the problem for gawd's sake. We may well deplore their actions, but what about our own deplorable stupidity?

The Concerned Citizen:

30 Jul 2014 9:47:09am

No "we" weren't. At all.Rudd mentioned something about supporting the USA and bleating about how bad Assad is when the conflict gained more publicity a few months before losing an election.BUT Tony Abbott, then opposition leader (now PM) famously gave his "Baddies vs Baddies" speech. So Australia has never actually supported ANYONE in Syria.

That aside, I certainly never endorsed any faction in this conflict- and I imagine Abbott said his speech knowing most Australians felt the same. Add to that the majority of USA and UK, judging from comments and aborted intervention policy (though their governments had initially provided material assistance against their people's knowledge).

So this royal "we" that supported the rebels doesn't exist and never did.

But even so, what you are suggesting is that if our government were stupid enough to arm our enemies, we are somehow 'honour bound' to continue making the same stupid decision for the sake of consistency?

Hybridfiat:

29 Jul 2014 9:41:18pm

"The government should work with mental health practitioners to ensure that any program best integrates those returning from conflict zones. Their experiences may make them vulnerable to post-traumatic stress disorder and so increase their vulnerability to radicalisation."

Oh ripper! So young men can go abroad, murder and mutilate and come back to the welcoming open arms of our health system. No doubt they will need long periods being supported on welfare too.No repeat NO! Dont let them back!

jonty:

29 Jul 2014 9:46:31pm

There would be no greater indication of the allegiance of these people than the participation of Australia in war. Let me guess whose side these people would take. Are these people honestly Australian citizens? I don't think so, it's just a convenient and safe place to raise their families away from their actual country of allegiance. They will always be citizens of their "old" countries using Australia as a hiding place.

ltfc1:

29 Jul 2014 10:02:47pm

Are you seriously suggesting that taxpayers fund extremist who have chosen to take up arms against the will of the Australian legal system and the wishes of the Australian public? Have you seen the photos of one of these thugs holding up severed heads? These individuals are exactly the reason why Australians will never likely take Muslims or Islam into their hearts. You speak of their religious leaders offering more to prevent these individuals leaving but let's be honest they rarely if ever condemn any of the atrocities committed. Only the other day this country allowed a serious offender who had been arrested and returned to Australia to walk free into the community so he could practice his free speech of hatred and aggressive Islamic militancy. I'm sorry but I've just about heard it all when it comes to what this country needs to do for people who don't deserve a single thing. The first thing that should happen is to close that famous breeding ground of hatred called a bookshop in Sydney! If they leave to fight then they can stay there to face the consequences.

Dave:

29 Jul 2014 10:27:45pm

It is vital that we continue to advance a rational counter message to radical Islamic propaganda. Moreover the crucial audience is the young left leaning atheist generation we have produced. The battle ground on which this argument can most readily be won is the virulent hostility this theocratic fascism has towards women & gay people. There is a lazy knee jerk on the left/green/pc spectrum to confuse islam with causes actually worth defending. All that is required to demolish this fellow travelling support group is to expose the way that gays/feminists/apostates ( amongst others ) are dealt with under sharia.

Dove:

30 Jul 2014 7:56:57am

I wouldn't be holding my breath. No-one has managed to take the catholic church to task over their discriminatory employment practices. Many people look at yemeni or saudi society and then think that they apply across the entire islamic world. Arabs are a muslim minority group. Fact

bluedog:

30 Jul 2014 2:42:56pm

Dave says, 'It is vital that we continue to advance a rational counter message to radical Islamic propaganda. Moreover the crucial audience is the young left leaning atheist generation we have produced'.

Exactly.

All those impeccably progressive, post-modern, secularists are oblivious to the reality that the post-secularist outcome is Islam!

damon:

Dove:

30 Jul 2014 1:16:42pm

I saw the uncensored photos online just this morning, and they are extremely disturbing. Not just one beaming maniac holding up a brace of heads, but heads on spikes in numbers, with more beaming maniacs posing for the photo op. In this age it's fair enough to wonder if they are photo shopped and it's all some propaganda ruse. But if they're real, they can only be taken to try and strike terror into their enemies. And they succeed. They also bear a witness to the depravity of people. The heads might well have been removed post mortem but that can't compare to american troops cutting off noses, ears and fingers in afghanistan. These pictures are genuinely disgusting. Will young men be inspired to join these outlaws? Probably.

jack44:

30 Jul 2014 3:04:53am

Maybe my contention is a little old fashioned, but I can't help but feel that I'm being led by the nose by this article.

a) Neither of these people are children. I'm assuming they are aware of both the teachings of Islam and the law of the land in Australia. If they are not I am extremely surprised. Neither goes any way towards allowing them to commit acts of this barbarity, and their usual form of departure ex australia clearly indicates knowledge that its illegal.

c) Cancel their passports forthwith and NEVER, repeat never, allow them to enter Australia again. Don't give me that malarkey about "I didn't know the gun was loaded". This is a deliberate and concise act to murder at any opportunity in a manner which defies humanity.

d) I note that I am not anti muslim and never have been. I work often in Bahrain, Dubai, Oman and Abu Dhabi, and the majority of muslims in those countries feel nothing more than a sense of utter revulsion at these acts.

e) I am getting thouroughly tired of the press in Australia taking this typical stance of telling me how I should feel, and specifically about moral issues. Please leave my judgements to me - I don't need a social commentator to tell me what my reaction is to news of this ilk. And my reaction is simple. If you can't live like a human then you have no place in this society.

Fred:

30 Jul 2014 7:14:23am

The growth of radical Islam, and its appeal to Muslim youth in the West, has I suggest, very recent origins. At the beginning of the twentieth century, the Ottoman Empire was crumbling. World War I saw the final collapse. During the war, Britain encouraged Arab nationalist movements, only to suffer betrayal soon after. The Sykes-Picot Agreement between the British and French, partitioned the Middle East between them. The patchwork of states that exist today. came into being under the League of Nations Mandate in 1922. In November 1917, the Balfour Declaration promised British support for the international Zionist movement, for the creation of a Jewish homeland in Palestine. Oil had been found in Persia in 1908. Britain and Russia competed for influence until the Russian revolution, after which Persian nationalism asserted itself until 1941. With British support, the House of Saud, won control of the Arabian peninsula in 1932. King Faisal ruled in Iraq. The British mandate was a divided into the Emirate of Transjordan and Palestine remaining under British Rule. The French mandate became Lebanon and Syria.Following the Second World War, over 250,000 Jewish refugees were displaced in Europe. The Zionist insurgency in Palestine, including bombings and assasinations, caused the Mandate to become unpopular in post-War Britain. The Anglo-American Committee approved the immediate acceptance of 100,000 Jewish refugees. The UN adopted Resolution 181 for the Partition of Palestine into Arab and Israeli stated. In May 1948, the Zionist declared the State of Israel. The 1948 Arab-Israeli War began, resulting in 800,000 arab Palestinians becoming displaced from areas annexed by Israel. Post war, the Arab states gained independence. Arab nationalism in Egypt, Syria and Iraq contrasted with the oil rich kingdoms and emirates, who allied with Britain and new power USA.Iran became a constitutional monarchy after the war under the Shah. The Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (now known as BP) controlled the oil industry, with 90% of the profits going offshore. In 1951, after an offer of 50-50 share was rejected, Prime Minister Mosaddeq announced the nationalisation of the oil industry, following a parliamentary vote. Britain requested US help to retake the refineries. President Truman refused, unwilling to assist colonialism. The British decided to engineer a worldwide boycott of Iranian oil, to destabilise the government. After changes of government, Churchill convinced President Eisenhower that communist influences were at work in Iran. The newly created CIA, launched Operation Ajax, to overthrow Mosaddeq and install the Shah as absolute monarch. On 19 August 1953, Mosaddeq was arrested, and nazi-sympathiser Faziollah Zahedi named prime minister. The CIA and MI6, organised violent mobs to terrorise Tehran in the days leading up to the coup. Between 300-800 people were killed during the operation. The US demanded that US Oil

CJB22:

30 Jul 2014 7:25:03am

In any group of people the bad apples invariably have a disproportionate negative influence on the rest. This applies regardless of the size of the group. From a class room to a country. Rules and laws etc. attempt to curb that influence but ultimately curbing the negative influence of the few bad apples in the group must come from the actions of members within the group.Throw religion and cheap powerful weapons into the mix and you compound the problem. I always feel so sorry for the average person trapped in these never ending conflicts. The majority invariably just want to get on with their lives.

Coogara:

30 Jul 2014 7:30:58am

Rehabilitation is fundamental but this should take place while they are in a very long term prison sentence in a remote location. The process should include study of Christianity, Buddhism and moderate Islamic teaching. Part of the punishment should include mandatory community work.

Tory Boy:

bluedog:

Acetes:

30 Jul 2014 7:37:29am

If these individuals feel a greater responsibility to some civil war on the other side of the globe than their nominal home, then they should be allowed to go. Their passports can be collected at the departure gate and never returned.

MadMax:

Right Fred:

30 Jul 2014 8:57:17am

The article presents a weak PC attempt to deal with a serious problem that is getting worse. To have any chance of solving this problem we MUST explore what most Muslims believe.

Beginning with Mohammed (the EXEMPLAR human being to muslims), Islam was a religion of violence. He oversaw the murder of about 1000 POWs of the Banu Qurayza people. He took a child bride - Aisha, who their own sources say was nine years old when the marriage was consummated. He congratulated the murderer of a woman who had mocked him. He committed Arabic incest but said god had given him permission.

Islam is violent at its core BECAUSE of the example of their founder. When Muslims talk of peace, they mean submission. If you submit to Islam, either becoming Muslim or Dhimmi, you have peace.

Christians are violent DESPITE the examples set by Jesus, whereas Muslims are violent BECAUSE of Mohammed

Oaktree:

30 Jul 2014 9:10:02am

If anybody finds the need to drag a God into their decision, it is a given that either: they need justification for what they are doing: or that they are being manipulated by someone else who is using a God for their justification.

Basically, someone at the top is doing very nicely moneywise, arms dealers perhaps?

livo:

30 Jul 2014 9:18:10am

Extremist / radicalised Islam in Australia is not a new phenomenon. I remember watching Mike Willesee interview a leading Australian Muslim Cleric on A Current Affair some years ago, discussing the publication of Salman Rushdie's Satanic Verses.

When asked about the Fatwa, and what he would do if he saw Mr Rushdie in an Australian airport, the interviewee clearly and without hesitation said that he would be bound by his religion to kill him.

25 years have passed and we are starting to worry? Shut the gate, the horse has bolted.

Marty:

Jamie:

30 Jul 2014 9:18:56am

Um, Anthony, these people aren't 'our citizens'.People like you and the pathetic Australian Press Council, still call these people 'Islamic Australians'.They are NOT Australians and never will be because they don't believe in the laws of this country.

I'm sure these Islamic filth are still receiving welfare or 'an invalid pension'.The useless and easy welfare system is why they are coming to Australia.

Original Aussie:

30 Jul 2014 9:35:55am

PS: *The government should work with mental health practitioners to ensure that any program best integrates those returning from conflict zones. Their experiences may make them vulnerable to post-traumatic stress disorder and so increase their vulnerability to radicalisation.*

WHAT!?!...Just throw them in jail, and take a few lessons from experts that really know what's going on re radicalization.

Tory Boy:

30 Jul 2014 10:15:37am

These people fight for their god and cannot be reasoned with. Islam has nothing to offer 21st century Australia; we should not be allowing immigration by people who will always put their religion before this nation.

Original Aussie:

30 Jul 2014 10:15:54am

Just had a quick look across the internet on what America and Britain are doing re their returning Jihadis - JAIL - that's what they are doing ! For heavens sake you want to give grants to organizations! mental health programs! PTSD ! the guy was holding two severed heads!! what is wrong with you!!!... Just look on the web and you'll find plenty of experts legal etc that you are extremely out of step with !@^&# !!!ISIS respects no international boundaries and is a designated terrorist group in the USA and UK and France. How they were radicalized? you don't have to look very far; the very ideology they subscribe to is reason enough.

ardy:

30 Jul 2014 10:33:35am

Dr Anthony Bergin's ideas quietly supports radical people as they thrive on soft people and soft ideas.

It is a lack of action against extremism everywhere that is bringing on a major conflict. There are so many radical organisations and radicalised young people that major terrorist action is almost guaranteed.

Greenpeace is another major breeding ground for fundamental anti west, anti capitalist actions especially in Europe. See Olivier Vermonts Book for details.

This is a one sided fight where the extremists are fighting, whilst we in the western world are not even discussing it seriously, and it is being belittled in our universities where many are radicalised. Western governments by their gutless prevarication are tacitly supporting extremists. They should take a leaf out of Roman history, ignore this stuff at your peril.

Esteban:

sean:

30 Jul 2014 11:48:02am

I disagree. The "War on Terror" shows that western governments are prepared to spend lots of money and kill lots of people to combat terrorism. The problem is not the will to act harshly or commit resources, it is the intelligence to act in a way that seeks to solve our problem rather than to exact revenge on our enemies.

For example (and this is hypothetical) if it was the case that paying Al Qaeda 1 trillion dollars would end terrorist attacks, western governments would never do it - but they will spend one trillion and kill millions in invasions and actually make terrorism worse! And still get re-elected!

We are not interested in a solution unless it also punishes the terrorists. Conversely, so solution will be entertained that even looks like rewarding them in any way.

This approach severely limits our ability to solve our actual problem - terrorist acts against us. But it does address our other problem - the need to punish.

Talismancer:

30 Jul 2014 10:51:27am

A delusion: is a fixed belief that is either false, fanciful, or derived from deception. In psychiatry, it is defined to be a belief that is pathological (the result of an illness or illness process) and is held despite evidence to the contrary.

As a pathology, it is distinct from a belief based on false or incomplete information, dogma, stupidity, apperception, illusion, or other effects of perception.

As a society we do not treat this mental illness as such. We have no mechanisms to attempt to detect it, treat it, or deal with it when it becomes an aggravated problem. Yet it is a disease that effects up to 80% of the population and has been dignified by group delusions such as Religion and evidence-free right-wing politics.

It is time to accept that education MUST be for life if we are to flourish (or even survive) as a species.

sean:

30 Jul 2014 11:27:56am

I'm with you right up to the bit about "evidence free right wing politics". That problem is simply: "evidence free politics" - it occurs all along the political spectrum and it needs to be fought- but not by blaming the other side.

Rob:

30 Jul 2014 11:37:39am

Has anyone asked these radicals why they are so radicalised to the point of such inhumanity?Did anyone ask the SS why they hated Jews so much? Did anyone ask Lt'Calley whe he butchered so many innocent women and children in Vietnam?Did anyone ask those settlers in Israel why they seemed to be enjoying looking down on Gaza being bombed and burning as if it was a fireworks display?Does anyone ask why seemingly good people do such evil things?

If we cause or sponsor wars as in Iraq- Syria- Palestine- Lebanon- Libya do we not create radicals?Why did these two join up with ISIS and not Assad? did we-meaning our "frieinds" not co sponsor the attempted regime change there. As these two were fighting against Assad does that not make them allies of ours?

What a perverse world we have created. If we want to stop radicalisation by all means do what the author suggest but also ensure you do not add to the radicalisation by giving extremists the reason to hate you.'Peace cannot be kept by force-it can only be achieved by understanding' Einstein-

Jamie:

30 Jul 2014 12:22:59pm

Tony Abbott said if the Islamic rubbish returned to Australia, they would be punished, but, I'm sure Sarah Hanson-Young and Julien Burnside will stand up for the Islamic rubbish.I have no doubt that, the welfare money and 'invalid pension' money is still being sent out them somewhere to a bank account linked to a Lakemba bank.How pathetic this country is, full of useless do-gooders.

Mike (the other one):

30 Jul 2014 1:05:08pm

The whole trouble with religion is that there is a plethora of very different belief systems (and accompanying variations) and people that believe in their particular brand are all too often blinkered and insular about it.

At day's end the non believer can no more disprove any belief system based on faith than the believer can prove the existence of it. At some point the agnostic must come to the realisation that this faith can be exploited by individuals to build power bases with rewards to the individual such as a place in paradise.

For the believers of some religions it must logically follow that if there is an afterlife, a paradise then the taking of life is no big deal and so some religions remain a catalyst for violence.

There has been much discussion through these comments about history and some tit for tatting over religion and culture. But the point here is that by and large Australia along with many other developed countries has moved on, away from religious violence, at least for the time being and the question we have to ask ourselves is this; do we want to be re-infected with religious vagaries, their intolerance, possible violence and how do we avoid it?

For my money and at this point in time Islam produces the most violence and intolerance of any religion on the planet for whatever reason.

Dove:

Filz:

30 Jul 2014 1:24:46pm

"Finally, we should have a rehabilitation program for Australian foreign fighters returning from conflict zones like Syria and Iraq."

Rehabilitation programme? Better yet, a repatriation programme - take their passports, issue them with a one-way travel document and send them back to the war zone they came from. With that, inform them that if they again try to enter Australia, not only they, but also their family will be deported.

I realise that this is "communal guilt" but a threat to family is the only thing some of these people understand. I'm certain they would have no difficulty with the concept, if it was reversed.

Dove:

30 Jul 2014 1:41:28pm

The Fraser government passed the Foreign Incursions and Recruitment Act to stop Australians going abroad to fight, then the concern was southern africa (I served with a NZ SAS officer who was previously a mercenary there but that's another story). I am unsure as to why this can't be used or dusted off. I wonder if we already have the legal tools but are looking for political mileage?

Mawson:

30 Jul 2014 3:14:43pm

Where is the evidence that these people, upon return to Australia, have caused significant harm?

Hand-up anyone here who can honestly attest to being a victim, or related to a victim, of violence etc perpetrated by a person who has returned home from the Syrian conflict, who would not have otherwise have done so had they not participated?

If your answer is that they haven't returned yet, plenty of people in Australia have fought in foreign wars or in insurgencies. Conflicts in Ethiopia, Sri Lanka, Ireland, Iraq, the Balkans, Georgia, and Israel.

So what actually are the dangers that exist here?

Or we just don't want them here because we don't agree with them.

In 1914, young Australians were encouraged to join up to fight in the middle east in a war which was not theirs. In 2014 the same is arguably occuring, albeit for a different cause.

It is really hard to argue that one is more morally superior to the other.

In one Australia with allies invaded a sovereign state and imparted over 56,000 deaths of young turkish men before leaving.

In another, a there is a civil war to topple a regime which massacred peaceful protests in 2011 in the Arab spring.

It is all in the eyes of the beholder.

I think in reality the government is blowing its dog-whistle for its cause - giving racists and islamaphobes licence to air their mainly (right-wing) vegemite-patriotic views on the ABC, refugees, the greens, etc.

It is always interesting when we talk about people being influenced to fight these wars, and stopping those who would incite them to do so, like they have some magical power over our youth.

Here is something novel - how about winning the war of ideas first - how about a moral argument about why the al-Assad regime should be left alone - if that is in fact the point?

Right Fred:

30 Jul 2014 3:54:59pm

Mawson, is this of concern to you?--One Norwegian study found that a substantial number of foreign fighters move on to international terrorism: on average, one in nine foreign fighters returned home to take part in a domestic terror plot--

Tpot:

30 Jul 2014 3:55:05pm

The main difference we have in the west is separation of Church and state. until Islam and Moslems come to grips with this distinction then there will be Radical idiots causing the problems of today. As people get educated and have safe secure lives they loose the need to look for a better life next time around, rather than have a good life now.

Dove:

Jimmy Necktie:

30 Jul 2014 4:46:57pm

why is this only now such a big deal? Hasn't this been going on since at least the Spanish Civil War?

I'd like to point out that the act of fighting in a desert doesn't make one a terrorist, acts of terrorism do. Australians who can be proved to have comitted or planned to committed (or incite) an act of terrorism should be prosecuted, not before. We can't be going around punishing people for what they *might* do. It's a dangerously slippery slope.

Cranky:

30 Jul 2014 5:55:08pm

Islam is not just a religion. It is also a political, legal, financial, social and military doctrine which extends to all facets of Muslim life, the cultural and legal landscape of where Muslims live and how to treat non-Muslims. Islam makes it obligatory for observant Muslims to assist in extending the rule of Islam across the world. For too long Islam has enjoyed immunity from necessary analysis, due criticism and debate because of its status as 'just a religion'. Unfortunately, if we continue to tolerate Islam without understanding it, Australia as a free, secular democracy will be lost.

Erika:

30 Jul 2014 6:25:22pm

The problem I see is: Jihadist websites and videos portray those who take part as heroes, the message is, "Do this and you'll be an Islamic hero, a martyr." There's also a strong undertone of adventure and companionship, a bit like an advert for the Australian Defence Forces, in fact!

Countering that directly is difficult, especially as Jihadist organisations specifically target the lonely and the disaffected. The "don't be a Jihadist" alternatives are going to be about as exciting and appealing as those ghastly government community service advertisements.

So the Jihadists need to be countered indirectly. Part of this involves the on-going cooperation of senior leaders in the Moslem community drawing a very distinct line between being a devout Moslem and being a murderous terrorist. The other part of the solution involves ensuring that young people in general and young Moslem men in particular feel that they are a valued part of the Australian community.

The Australian government's proposed policies for young job seekers will do the exact opposite. The constant needling Moslems get in some parts of the media help to push people into extremist acts.

Latest Episode

Hot Topic

The Prime Minister has announced Australia will be expanding its military role in Iraq for up to two years. Tony Abbott has signed off on sending 300 Australian soldiers for a joint mission with New Zealand.